Sociology 4099: Victimology
Lecture Notes Week 1.2 Victimology and Social Theory
The wealth of data collected mainly through victimization surveys has
led to various theoretical formulations to help us better explain and predict
victimization. Models have been developed to offer plausible explanations
for the variations in victimization risks, and for the clustering of
victimization in certain areas and certain groups. Four major types of
theoretical formulations have emerged:
(i)Radical theories that emphasize social power relations as reflected
in socio-structural, cultural, and institutional factors;
(ii)Situation-oriented theories (already discussed in your readings);
(iii)Feminist theories; and
(iv)Critical victimology.
In the first group, radical victimological theories stress sociostructural, cultural, and institutional factors. Patterns of victimization are
seen as reflections of economic and power relations, and theory stresses the
rhetoric of human rights for neglected populations (Galtung 1969; Elias
1985: 17; Schneider 2000: 5). For example, radical scholars have
questioned the part played by the capitalist state in defining offender and
victim, concentrating instead on Avictims of police force, the victims of war,
the victims of the correctional system, the victims of state violence, the
victims of oppression of any sort@ (Quinney 1972: 315).
Within this first group, we can find three subgroups or variations - all
of which emphasize how different aspects of socially organized power
impacts upon risk of victimization. The first group emphasizes that patterns
of victimization reflect the economic and power structure of a society.
Socio-cultural theorists argue that marginalized, powerless minorities that
have been pushed towards the edge of society are often forced into
becoming victims. Structural violence and discrimination turns into
personal violence (Galtung); social discrimination turns into personal
violence (K. Sessar). The social pressure imposed on marginalized
minorities leads to social disorganization, decay of relations and
communities causing a propensity to become a victim (D. Smith, G. Jajoura,
T. Miethe and D. McDowell). The Australian Aborigines who have been
deprived of their culture and identity and whose numbers have been
decimated by 1/2 can be given as an example here. Similarly, it has been
argued that the killing of female infants and dowry homicide in India is but
an extreme manifestation of a patriarchal social structure. In this respect,
the neglect of and killing of girls as well as the burning of women are seen
as merely symptoms of a socio-structural discrimination against women in
1
Indian society. Moreover, since much of this has to do with the economics of
dowries, the ideology of the subordination of women is linked to the
economic production structures as well.
The second subcategory of this first group involves cultural theorists.
These writers argue that customs, tradition, religion, and the ideology of
society are the subjective form of socio-structural victimization, since the
structure of the economy and the system of power influence views, value
concepts, and the stereotypes of a society (Berrill, Schulthess, and Hunter).
Hate crimes that are characterized by the symbolic status of the crime
victim constitute an example. Victims, such as gays, belong to an outsider
group symbolizing that which the insider group (to which the offender
belongs) does not want to be. Offences like gay bashing, then, serve to
affirm the solidarity and identity of the insider group and at the same time
to strengthen the feeling of self-assurance of group members. In this
context, heterosexism is a cultural, ideological system that rejects and
stigmatizes non-heterosexual forms of behavior, identity, relationships, and
communities. One is here dealing with an ideology of suppression that
manifests itself in social customs, religious and legal institutions, individual
views and styles of conduct. Homosexuality, in this example, is stigmatized
as being illegal (in some places), sinful and morbid. The heterosexual
cultural ideology defines what is to be viewed as "masculinity" and
"femininity." As the concepts associated with "masculinity" and "femininity"
are learned at a very young age, they often appear "natural" to an adult:
homosexuality is felt to be abnormal.
Finally, there is the third sub-group of those theories that emphasize
power relations: institutional theorists (Schneider, Seligman). Such writers
take the above arguments one step further, and look at the functioning of
institutions within such a power structure. They not only look at
victimization within institutions, but also at victimization by institutions
themselves. Examples of the former includes violence in nursing homes, in
schools, and in prisons. The cause of violence can be found in the staff
members of the institution and its inmates, but it can also lie in the
structure of the institution. In this latter respect, the emphasis is on how
bureaucratic procedures, uneven power distribution, and management
styles within institutions function to victimize those being “served” by staff.
Bureaucratic, formalistic impersonality can prevail within relatively isolated
institutions, and the persons within can be without mutual social relations.
Inmates can thus become mere work objects, lifeless abstractions for which
the staff feels no personal responsibility. There is too great a gap between
the low number of staff and the large group of inmates. Power is unilaterally
distributed: decision-making and control is completely on the side of staff
members who always feel superior and in the right. The inmates, in
contrast, are powerless. Moreover, they have largely been deprived of their
2
sphere of privacy and their personal belongings. They are even excluded
from decisions affecting their own personal destiny. This group has no more
control over itself. Everything is regimented. Its role is ultimately a purely
reactive one; it can no longer develop initiatives on its own.
Institutional violence can, of course, also have functional causes. Here
an authoritarian management style plays an essential role: if the position of
power established between the staff and inmates is unilaterally allocated to
the staff group, and if the power imbalance is made socially visible by
symbols of power and the individuality of people is restricted, social power
becomes the main dimension of behavior through which everyone and
everything is defined. The staff group, given basically unlimited power over
the powerless inmates, is inclined to misuse its superior status and exert
authoritarian and violent behavior. The powerless inmate group is
dominated and subjected to virtually every kind of debasement. The inmates
soon fall into a process of psycho-social degradation. After initial resistance
it learns and accepts its own depreciation, its growing dependence and
indulgence at an astonishing pace. It develops a tendency to feel defeated,
inferior, weak, reproachable and guilty victims.
Essentially, these structural theories focus on power relations to
explain the data and predict victimization. The major difference between
them is the particular aspect of power relations that they emphasize in so
doing: social structural elements (e.g. political economy; patriarchal gender
relations); cultural ideologies (e.g. mandatory heterosexism); or institutional
elements (e.g. bureaucratic "help agencies"). It is important to recognize
that each of these approaches has merit, and that all such factors should be
considered - with varying degrees of emphasis depending on the subject
matter - when looking at coming to an understanding of particular instances
of victimization.
Despite the diverse insights provided above, many early radical
approaches did little to establish an empirical body of knowledge, and often
provided an oversimplified rendering of class, law and state to the relative
detriment of gender, race and age (Mawby and Walklate 1994: 16; Walklate,
2000: 187). Radical left realists called for an >accurate victimology= which
starts with the >problems as people experience them,= which analysed the
social and geographic distribution of victimization (Young 1986: 23-24).
While relying heavily on victimization surveys, radical left realism aimed to
incorporate known facts about age, sex, class and race patterns to improve
estimate s of racial and sexual harassment, as well as disproportionate
victimization by commercial crime. Nevertheless, such an approach left
itself open to the charge of a >latent slippage into positivism= (Walklate
2000: 187-188).
3
But, as noted at the outset, there is also a second broad group of
victim-oriented theories. Situation-oriented theories, as they are commonly
known, focus more on specific, contextual interactions between victims and
offenders than structural variables. In many respects this different
emphasis reflects the ongoing divide in victimology, noted last class,
between victim activists and academic researchers. For example, rather
than emphasize socially structured power relations, many situation
-oriented theorists look at the interaction between the alleged offender and
victim. Hence, one subcategory of situation-oriented theories gives us the
controversial concept of victim precipitation (Wolfgang, 1958), which sees
the origin of victimization in a misguided offender-victim interaction where
victim behavior is misinterpreted by the offender. On the other hand,
lifestyle theories (Garafalo, 1978) assert that victimization is associated
with certain lifestyles, with constantly recurring behaviors where one is
exposed to situations bearing a high risk of victimization. This has evolved
into the routine activity theory (Cohen and Felson, 1979), which asserts that
three elements are essential for victimization: the existence of motivated
offenders, the presence of a suitable target object for criminal action, and
the absence of persons effectively able to protect the target against a
violation of the law. The central factors underlying this approach are
opportunity, proximity/exposure, and facilitating factors. A number of
variations on these situation-oriented models have emerged, such as the
opportunity model (Cohen et.al, 1981), the Dutch model (Van Dijk and
Steinmetz), and the comprehensive system proposed by Fattah (1991).
Let us consider the controversial concept of victim precipitation in
more detail first. An important line of theoretical inquiry into victim
processes emphasizes the situational nature of victim-offender interactions.
For example, Wolfgang (1958) discovered that 1 in 4 Philadelphia homicides
the victim was the first party to engage in some form of aggressive action
(he called such murders "victim-precipitated"). He also raised the question
of the interpretation or misinterpretation of behavior by the offender. This
raised doubts about the stereotype of a completely innocent victim and a
completely guilty offender. This argument has been expanded beyond
homicide to include other types of crime such as assault, robbery, even rape
(Amir, 1971). Of course, this has been widely criticized by activists as
"victim blaming," as well as being overly simplistic. In recent years attempts
have been made to move beyond simple victim precipitation, looking more
fully at the interaction between the offender and the victim. Luckenbill, for
example, analyzed murder as a "situated transaction" where homicide is
frequently the result of a "character contest." These take the form of a
gamelike confrontation in which both the offender and the victim each
attempt to save face at the expense of the other. Others, such as Felson and
Steadman (1983) have attempted to broaden this approach to criminal
violence more generally. While rooted in the concept of victim precipitation,
4
such analyses provide important elaborations - and a more balanced
assessment of the role played by victims in the generation of crime.
Kennedy and Sacco even suggest broadening this approach to what they
call a "criminal event perspective" emphasizing a detailed temporal analysis
of the victimizing event.
The second subcategory of situation-oriented theories tend to focus a
lot more on the structure of the criminal opportunity. Like in your reading
where Kennedy and Sacco suggest that even the most highly motivated,
talented, and well-trained piano player can't do so without access to a
piano, offenders cannot commit victimizations without access to an
appropriate victim. Unlike traditional theories of crime that assume that
victimization opportunities are present and then attempt to explain why
some people exploit them, situation-oriented theories assert that it is the
supply of opportunities that requires explanation. In short, we need to ask
what it is that people do that presents offenders with criminal opportunities.
There have been a number of attempts to answer this question.
Perhaps the first would be Hindelang, Gottfredson and Garofalo's (1978)
lifestyle exposure theory. This tries to explain why some groups, such as
young males, ethnic and economic minorities, face much higher risks of
victimization than others. Their explanation centers around lifestyle: a
concept defined in terms of daily activities of both a vocational and leisure
nature: patterned ways in which people distribute their time and energies
across a range of activities. The argument is that some lifestyles are more
likely than others to put people at risk of criminal victimization (e.g. those
that regularly put a person on the street or in bars late at night, or brings
them into regular contact with young, male members of certain economic
and ethnic minority groups). They sum up their theory with 8 basic
propositions:
1.The more time individuals spend in public places (especially at
night), the more likely it is that they will be victimized;
2.Following certain lifestyles makes an individual more likely to
frequent public places;
3.The interactions that individuals maintain tend to be with persons
who share their lifestyles;
4.The probability that an individual will be a victim increases to the
extent to which victims and offenders belong to the same
demographic categories;
5.The proportion of time one spends in places where there is a large
number of non-family members varies according to lifestyle;
6.The chance that an individual will be a victim of crime (particularly
theft) increases in conjunction with the amount of time he or she
spends among nonfamily members;
5
7.Differences in lifestyle relate to individuals' ability to isolate
themselves from those with offender characteristics;
8.Variations in lifestyle influence the convenience, desirability, and
ease of victimizing an individual.
According to this theory, then, rates of personal victimization are relatively
high for young minority males because these individuals tend to associate
with people who are likely to offend (i.e. other young, minority males) and
because they tend to frequent places (e.g. bars) where offending often
occurs. An elderly woman, in contrast, is likely to associate with others like
herself (whose level of offending is relatively low) and to avoid high risk
settings. Lifestyle, in a sense, structures victimization opportunities.
A related approach is Cohen and Felson's (1979) routine activity
theory, which attempts to explain variations in victimization rates
independently of changes in the size of the offender population (e.g. the
rising crime in the 1960's). They argued that there is a need to focus on the
way that social changes in the period increased the supply of criminal
opportunities. For "direct contact predatory violations" (i.e. victimizations)
to occur, they argue that three elements must come together in time and
space: (i) a motivated offender must come into contact with (ii) a suitable
target; in the absence of (iii) capable guardianship (that might otherwise
prevent the occurrence of victimization).
While most criminologists focus on the factors that motivate
offenders, Cohen and Felson wanted to focus in on changes in the latter two
factors. Specifically, they argue that since the end of WWII several changes
have occurred in North American society to increase the likelihood of
criminal victimization. For example, the world beyond the household has
increasingly become the focus of routine activities. There has been a growth
in the number of single person households, rising divorce rates and a
tendency to marry later in life. All of these have shifted more routine
activities away from the home. This increases the chance that people will
come into contact with strangers, while leaving homes more empty and
unguarded than in the past. Moreover, now there are many lightweight
durable consumer goods (such as VCR's) more easily stolen than in the past.
All these broad social changes have increased the likelihood that motivated
offenders and suitable targets will converge in time and space in the
absence of capable guardians. Thus, rates of direct contact victimization
will be expected to climb. Indeed, it is argued that these changes will
increase victimization levels even if the number of motivated offenders does
not increase.
Of course, lifestyle exposure and routine activity theory share many
common themes, and are often used interchangeably. But how is the
6
offender's motivation understood by these theories? It all goes back to
classical rational hedonism. Of course, it is recognized that offenders do not
always have all the information they need, so instead a limited rationality is
posited.
Since these formulations, situation oriented theorists have examined a
variety of problems. Some have gone on to focus on specific forms of
victimization (e.g. arson); others have broadened the search for the types of
lifestyle factors that increase victimization risk. Opportunity theory itself
has undergone a number of extensions and refinements. For example,
Sherman et. al. (1989) have focused their attention on the "hot spots" for
crime in particular urban areas.
But most importantly, subsequent writers have attempted to make
more explicit the concept of "opportunity." For example, Miethe and Mieir
(1994) argue that two factors in addition to capable guardianship and target
attractiveness can be identified. The first is proximity to crime (i.e. the
physical distance between the areas where potential targets of crime reside
and areas where large populations of potential offenders reside. The
second, exposure to crime, is indicative of visibility or accessibility to crime.
Exposure to personal crime is greater, for example, for those who spend
large amounts of time in public places at night. Exposure to burglary is
greater for houses that are located on a corner lot or have multiple points of
entry.
Using these four concepts, Miethe and Mieir develop what they call a
"structural choice theory of victimization." They argue that current theories
of victimization suggest two propositions: (1) Routine activities or lifestyles
create a structure of opportunity by enhancing the contact between
potential offenders and potential victims; (2) The subjective value of the
potential victimization target, whether it is a person or property, and the
level of guardianship determine which targets are ultimately chosen. Taken
together, these propositions imply that while patterns of routine activities
expose some people or property to greater risks, the selection of any
specific target depends upon the rewards and risks that are associated with
that target rather than another. This means that proximity and exposure
should be considered "structural factors" because they predispose people to
differing levels of risk. On the other hand, target attractiveness and
guardianship are best thought of as "choice components" because they
determine which specific targets are selected in a context that has a
particular level of risk associated with it.
Finally, it is important to note that several recent refinements to
opportunity theory have stressed the need to take explicity account of the
offender's role - most often from a "rational choice" perspective (Clarke and
7
Felson, 1993; Miethe and Mieir, 1994; Sacco and Kennedy, 1996). The idea
is that offenders rationally recognize that they will receive benefits from
their crimes only if they make advantageous decisions about when, where,
and who to victimize. Still, we have to recognize that we can only take this
so far when offenders lack information, act impulsively, or have their
judgements clouded by drugs or alcohol. Hence, while we need to remain
cognizant of this factor, we should consider "limited" rather than "pure"
rationality in this context.
Returning to our list at the outset, where it was indicated that there
are two more broad categories of victimological theory, we will briefly deal
now with (3) feminist theory; and (4) critical victimology.
The third broad group of victimological theories specifically highlight
the role of gender. Traditionally, feminist scholars had a reserved
relationship with victimology, criticizing positivist approaches as Avictim
blaming@ or questioning the powerlessness implicit in the term Avictim@ is
a female stereotype. They also challenged the very possibility of objective,
value-free research and stressed victimization in areas not amenable to
traditional victimization surveys - such as rape and domestic violence - in
the supposedly safe haven of the home. Moreover, while the above radicals,
particularly left realists, claim to consider the role of gender, feminism goes
further by postulating patriarchy as the underlying factor behind such
matters. While much of the research reflective of this approach has been
qualitative in nature, and questions have been raised about its ability to
sufficiently explain patterns of male victimization, feminist thought does
lead us to question whether an alternate conception of the research process
can set a more meaningful agenda for studying victims of crime (Young
1988; Walklate 2000: 188-189).
Finally, critical victimologists engage in analysis of the wider political,
economic and social context of victimization. Specifically, the critical
approach considers the broad social context in which some versions of
victimology have become more prominent than others, seeking to
understand how these are tied up with questions of policy response and
service delivery. Critical victimologists seek to consider Ahow the
generative mechanisms of capitalism and patriarchy set the material
conditions in which different victims= movements have flourished,@
introducing Aa critical edge in understanding the effects that research
agendas and policy initiatives may or may not have@ (Mawby and Walklate
1994: 21; Walklate 2000). Indeed, proponents also question why certain
actions are criminal or not, adding that many harmful activities committed
by wealthy or powerful individuals - and nations - are often not regarded
crimes, such genocide, war time rape, crimes involving abuse of power
rarely appearing in the media (Wallace 2007: 14). Hence, a great deal of
8
this approach is, in fact, oriented towards power and its relationship to
reality construction (e.g. who may be legitimately defined as a victim; the
ideological manipulation of victim claims to promote repressive policies).
Much like the power-reflexive perspective utilized by Pfohl (1994: 7-9) in
attempting to assess the historical development of criminological theory,
critical victimology:
. . . demands a research agenda which is both longitudinal and
comparative, and which breaks down the barriers between
quantitative and qualitative techniques. In the context of victimology
this kind of starting point postulates the importance of understanding
the processes which go on behind our backs, which contribute to the
victims (and the crimes) which we >see= as well as those we do not
>see,= in order to understand the >lived realities= of criminal
victimization . . . This form of victimology makes no special claims to
privilege one form of knowledge over another. Indeed, its only special
claim would lie in the requirement to recognize the political nature of
the knowledge production process (Walklate 2000: 190).
Each of the above approaches may provide varying levels of insight
into various aspects of victimization, and it will be important to consider the
differential insights of each when attending to any specific victimological
problem.
Conclusion: Victims and Victim Theories:
The above theories counterbalance the disproportionate attention that
criminologists have traditionally paid to offenders, emphasizing that we
need to consider victims as well. Because they make problematic rather
than assume the behavior of victims and potential victims, they encourage
criminologists to ask questions about a number of important issues (e.g.
relative risk and the victim's role in crime).
Yet critics have problems with many of these approaches. For
example, the situation oriented theories have been traditionally been
criticized as shifting the moral responsibility for crime from the offender to
the victim. It is easy to see this reasoning, but the fact remains that we still
need to make sense of the empirical character of victimization, and we need
to understand why some kinds of people are more likely to become victims
than others. We also need to understand how it is that the interactions
between victims and offenders shape the outcomes of those interactions.
Perhaps research in this area can in fact help us to reduce the risks for the
most vulnerable groups.
9
Victim centred theories have generated a large body of data in recent
years. Moreover, they are well supported by the existing body of empirical
evidence. All the same, critics argue that the usefulness of such theories
depends on the ability of researchers to overcome crude formulations such
as "lifestyle" and "routine activities." They also would like to see more
attention to structural contexts (e.g. wider community settings, specific
settings such as the workplace), as well as broader attention to victimless,
corporate and white-collar crime.
Feminist theory and critical victimology point to areas that have been
insufficiently considered in either of the above approaches, and, feminism in
particular, is generating much significant research. Critical victimology
shows great promise, particularly in relation to reality construction, but
more needs to be done.
Hence, the practical value of all theories will depend on the ability of
theorists and researchers to overcome the limitations of current
approaches. We have to move beyond crude and general measures of key
concepts such as "lifestyle." We also have to pay more attention to the
relationship(s) between lifestyle activities and the wider structural, cultural
and institutional settings in which power is exercised. Finally, we need to
always keep an eye to gender and the constitutive, reality construction
aspects of any victimological endeavour.
10